A Little Thought About Truth

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not sure there is much of an argument here. You just believe parsimony is a concept that is somehow operational. But to be operational parsimony would require that there is some kind of external world with particular crucial properties, for example that the impressions you have are somewhat indicative of this world. This is what "clear evidence" means. We call evidence some impression we deem indicative of something else. This is your choice but this is not an argument, or not a very compelling one, not to me.

Further you set up the alternative as some sort of elaborate trick but there's no good reason to accept this move. You are just displaying a confounding lack of imagination. It needs not be a trick. I could be just the way things are, whether or not there is some kind of external world.
EB

If there are two choices and one has all known evidence to support it (evolution) and requires no outside agency and the other choice has no evidence to support it (mind with no external world) and requires massive external agency then one choice is parsimonious.

And parsimony is a well established philosophical method for evaluating possibilities.

Irrelevant here.

The idea of a mind with no external world defies parsimony and is illogical to even contemplate.

I don't see what would be illogical with it. And I suspect you couldn't even articulate properly your reasons for saying this.

That this silly idea gets any attention is amazing.

Amazing has zero value when there's no world.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

So why should I believe that JTB is the correct theory of knowledge?

It's the most scholarly accepted theory of knowledge we have, so it makes since to lean towards that theory being the most accurate without substantial evidence to think otherwise.

Still, that's no good reason to think it's correct. We haven't even been told what's proper justification in this context.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So why should I believe that JTB is the correct theory of knowledge?

It's the most scholarly accepted theory of knowledge we have, so it makes since to lean towards that theory being the most accurate without substantial evidence to think otherwise.

Oh, like it's self evident?

Isn't that calling a spade a spade?

 

[untermensche]

If there are two choices and one has all known evidence to support it (evolution) and requires no outside agency and the other choice has no evidence to support it (mind with no external world) and requires massive external agency then one choice is parsimonious.

And parsimony is a well established philosophical method for evaluating possibilities.

Irrelevant here.

Says who?

You're asking me to chose between evolution or some mind without an external world somehow.

One has all the evidence and is far more likely because it doesn't involve unimaginable and massive external agency.

There is no real choice, if one wants to be logical.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Irrelevant here.

Says who?

Jest me.

You're asking me to chose between evolution or some mind without an external world somehow.

No I don't. Go back to the relevant post and you'll see I don't. I'm just stating the obvious that it's what you believe not what you know and you haven't provided any convincing argument to the contrary. You're just waving the "illogical" stick without being able to justify what's illogical in what I say.

One has all the evidence and is far more likely because it doesn't involve unimaginable and massive external agency.

My view doesn't necessitate any external agency. In effect, that would be contradictory to what I say. Or else explain to me how an external agency is necessitated.

There is no real choice, if one wants to be logical.

I already expressed my view that you couldn't even articulate properly your reasons for saying that the idea of a mind with no external world is illogical to even contemplate.
EB

 

[fast]

It's the most scholarly accepted theory of knowledge we have, so it makes since to lean towards that theory being the most accurate without substantial evidence to think otherwise.

Oh, like it's self evident?

Isn't that calling a spade a spade?

I'm still trying to figure out why I wrote "since" instead of "sense." I due crap like that all the time.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh, like it's self evident?

Isn't that calling a spade a spade?

I'm still trying to figure out why I wrote "since" instead of "sense." I due crap like that all the time.

No,"since" is fine. "Since" makes since.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I'm still trying to figure out why I wrote "since" instead of "sense." I due crap like that all the time.

No,"since" is fine. "Since" makes since.
EB

Shouldn't it be dew?

 

[Speakpigeon]

No,"since" is fine. "Since" makes since.
EB

Shouldn't it be dew?

Yeah. Tullamore dew.
EB

 

[untermensche]

My view doesn't necessitate any external agency. In effect, that would be contradictory to what I say. Or else explain to me how an external agency is necessitated.

How could there be a mind, if it didn't arise as all the evidence indicates, without massive external agency?

Something would have to be creating that mind in some way.

Unless your position includes miracles that arise on their own.

It is a highly illogical position that can't be defended in any way. Which is why you have defended it in no way.

 

[Speakpigeon]

My view doesn't necessitate any external agency. In effect, that would be contradictory to what I say. Or else explain to me how an external agency is necessitated.

How could there be a mind, if it didn't arise as all the evidence indicates, without massive external agency?

Something would have to be creating that mind in some way.

Unless your position includes miracles that arise on their own.

It is a highly illogical position that can't be defended in any way. Which is why you have defended it in no way.

So just because you can't see how something could happen you think it's illogical to think it could happen. Bro, we don't share the same logic at all.
EB

 

[untermensche]

How could there be a mind, if it didn't arise as all the evidence indicates, without massive external agency?

Something would have to be creating that mind in some way.

Unless your position includes miracles that arise on their own.

It is a highly illogical position that can't be defended in any way. Which is why you have defended it in no way.

So just because you can't see how something could happen you think it's illogical to think it could happen. Bro, we don't share the same logic at all.
EB

There is no seeing anything.

It is an illogical fairy tale.

Not worthy of any serious consideration.

 

[fromderinside]

So what is that stuff? Feathers or Ether?

 

[untermensche]

The mind is always asking.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So just because you can't see how something could happen you think it's illogical to think it could happen. Bro, we don't share the same logic at all.
EB

There is no seeing anything.

It is an illogical fairy tale.

Not worthy of any serious consideration.

Oh yes there is some seeing. It's me seeing you haven't any sort of argument beyond repeating "It's illogical! It's illogical!"

Well, I'm still waiting either for your proof (that's how it's called in logic) that what I say is illogical, or perhaps your redefinition of what it is for something to be illogical.
EB

 

[untermensche]

There is no seeing anything.

It is an illogical fairy tale.

Not worthy of any serious consideration.

Oh yes there is some seeing. It's me seeing you haven't any sort of argument beyond repeating "It's illogical! It's illogical!"

Well, I'm still waiting either for your proof (that's how it's called in logic) that what I say is illogical, or perhaps your redefinition of what it is for something to be illogical.
EB

To claim that the external world may not exist is an illogical assumption.

It would require massive secret and miraculous agency to achieve.

Some incredible intelligence would have to be behind it.

On the other hand if the external world is real we are the products of evolution. A process that requires no external agency at all.

One of these choices is parsimonious and one is rubbish. One is logical and one is not in the least.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Oh yes there is some seeing. It's me seeing you haven't any sort of argument beyond repeating "It's illogical! It's illogical!"

Well, I'm still waiting either for your proof (that's how it's called in logic) that what I say is illogical, or perhaps your redefinition of what it is for something to be illogical.
EB

To claim that the external world may not exist is an illogical assumption.

Not that I can see.

It would require massive secret and miraculous agency to achieve.

I fail to see why that would be.

Some incredible intelligence would have to be behind it.

Why?

On the other hand if the external world is real we are the products of evolution. A process that requires no external agency at all.

Sure. I know the story.

One of these choices is parsimonious and one is rubbish. One is logical and one is not in the least.

I seem to remember you as the champion of logical possibility but suddenly you're a turncoat. Go figure.
EB

 

[untermensche]

It would require massive secret and miraculous agency to achieve

I fail to see why that would be.

If the "world", "universe", "everything" is out there and has existence then no agency beyond the agency of the individual mind is required to think so.

If all is some creation then agency is required to produce the illusion. Massive external agency is required.

So you've added an unnecessary layer of agency to believe all is an illusion, without any evidence such agency exists, which makes the thought irrational.

 

[Underseer]

I think part of the problem is that they think the truth is a thing, like Platonism. Truth magically exists separate from sentient minds and just flits down to our brains when we "discover" a truth.

The other problem is that they think all truths are either completely, absolutely true, or false with nothing in between.

Since they don't understand why things are true, magic is the only possible explanation for the existence of truth. They can't seem to grasp that the truth is just a label we slap onto ideas, and that the existence of truths is evidence of epistemologies, not evidence that truth exists in a separate realm and flits down to our primitive ape brains at the direction of a sky-mage.

"I don't understand why thing are true, therefore god."

A classic example is mathematical truths. I don't understand why 2+2=4, therefore magic!

Except that anyone who got a passing grade in kindergarten should be able to explain to you why 2+3=5. We defined what two means, we defined what three means, we defined what five means, and we defined what the plus operator does. 2+3=5 is true because it is internally consistent with a set of rules and definitions that we all agreed to follow.

Furthermore, 2+3=5 isn't an absolute truth as theists imagine. It is, as I said, dependent on accepting a series of rules and definitions. Let's say someone decides to accept all the rules and definitions except one: he decides that the symbol "3" represents the color purple. So for him 2+3=5 translates to 2 plus purple equals 5, which not only isn't true, it doesn't even make sense. Thus mathematical truths are not objective, and if they're not objective, they can't be absolutes.

You don't need magic to explain why 2+3=5, you just need a sentient mind to come up with a set of rules and then follow the rules. At no point is magic needed to explain any of this.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I fail to see why that would be.

If the "world", "universe", "everything" is out there and has existence then no agency beyond the agency of the individual mind is required to think so.

Well, once you've assumed the existence of this whole gigantic universe, without even attempting to explain at all how come it just exists then, sure, all you need is to believe your own gigantic assumption. I accept you can do that. I'm sure you can do it.

If all is some creation then agency is required to produce the illusion. Massive external agency is required.

That's what I asked you to justify but you just keep repeating yourself. Repeat is not a very convincing argument.

Obviously, once you've described the illusion as a "creation" it seems agency is required but why would you say it has to be a creation when you've just shown you are prepared to accept that this whole gigantic universe that's supposed to sit out there is no creation and therefore doesn't require agency?

So you've added an unnecessary layer of agency to believe all is an illusion, without any evidence such agency exists, which makes the thought irrational.

Why do we need any agency here?
EB